Support NeoGAF

[shuyin_]

They both use motion captured actors. For some scenes they shot actors in mo-cap suits on live-action backgrounds, which is the same thing that was done with Davy Jones.

If that's the case, the comparison would be relevant. However, i'm pretty sure i read somewhere that Avatar is (almost) entirely CG.

The argument that 'it doesn't look real because these things don't exist' is not valid, because Davy Jones looks 100% real to me, as far as real can be without having seen the character in real life.

You might be surprised but... he was real
They applied CG effects (like tentacles etc) over the face of a real actor.

 

[duckroll]

No, you're totally wrong. Motion capturing does NOT mean they applied effects over the face of the actor. Davy Jones is 100% CG. No part of what you see on screen is the actor's face. The actor basically acted out the scenes with motion capture trackers all over his face in the actual scenes, but the end result of the character on screen is 100% CG. Avatar is being created using the exact same technique. If you think that the characters in Avatar don't have REAL actors and actresses doing the parts, I don't know what to say except that you have no idea how the movie is being produced. This isn't a Pixar cartoon, the only thing being hand animated are probably the creatures, not the characters.

 

[Veidt]

No, you're totally wrong. Motion capturing does NOT mean they applied effects over the face of the actor. Davy Jones is 100% CG. No part of what you see on screen is the actor's face. The actor basically acted out the scenes with motion capture trackers all over his face in the actual scenes, but the end result of the character on screen is 100% CG. Avatar is being created using the exact same technique. If you think that the characters in Avatar don't have REAL actors and actresses doing the parts, I don't know what to say except that you have no idea how the movie is being produced. This isn't a Pixar cartoon, the only thing being hand animated are probably the creatures, not the characters.

Yeah, Cameron already mentioned Motion Capture being used for the actors a thousand times already.

Honestly, I think Avatar won't impress that much ( i hope it does though). And Davy Jones is realistic as hell.

 

[FirewalkR]

Honestly, I think Avatar won't impress that much ( i hope it does though).

I think there's no chance of not being impressive. What I got from reading Comic-Con's reactions was that even if it's not completely real looking, it's still ahead of everything else. People seem to be thinking it will only impress if it's absolutely perfect.

 

[Busty]

I think there's no chance of not being impressive.

Well I know some in GAF (and in this thread) were a little underwhelmed when they saw the footage at SDCC but your opinion having seen the footage for yourself is reassuring.

What I got from reading Comic-Con's reactions ....

I see.

 

[shuyin_]

No, you're totally wrong. Motion capturing does NOT mean they applied effects over the face of the actor. Davy Jones is 100% CG. No part of what you see on screen is the actor's face. The actor basically acted out the scenes with motion capture trackers all over his face in the actual scenes, but the end result of the character on screen is 100% CG.

Hmmm... then i must've remembered wrong. I know what mocap is, but i thought they used CG only for his face. A quick search on za internets shows that indeed, Davy Jones was completely CG :|
Good use of CG is when it doesn't stand out and you can't tell the difference. I'd say Davy Jones is an example of good CG

Avatar is being created using the exact same technique. If you think that the characters in Avatar don't have REAL actors and actresses doing the parts, I don't know what to say except that you have no idea how the movie is being produced. This isn't a Pixar cartoon, the only thing being hand animated are probably the creatures, not the characters.

You misunderstood. By having real actors i meant having a real actor in the movie and then post-processing CG over the real actor's face for example. I consider movies like say The Spirits Within entirely CG, even though real actors motion captured the characters' animations.
That's what i meant about Avatar being entirely CG. Having real actors doing the animation doesn't make Avatar or Advent Children be a lice-action movie imo, so i refer to them as entirely CG.

 

[FirewalkR]

Well I know some in GAF (and in this thread) were a little underwhelmed when they saw the footage at SDCC but your opinion having seen the footage for yourself is reassuring.

Sigh. That's why I said "I think", just like Jibril had said before. Sheer speculation.

Again, from what I _read_, even here on GAF, seems like people came "underwhelmed" when comparing what they saw to all the hype Cameron created over the years, not compared to other films.

And many didn't come underwhelmed at all (and I'm not even talking about Jim Dorey ).

What I do *know* is that for good or bad reasons, this 21st GAF will suffer a gif onslaught. :lol

 

[Xenomorph]

Needs more trailer to hype me to explosion mode.

 

[Busty]

What I do *know* is that for good or bad reasons, this 21st GAF will suffer a gif onslaught. :lol

This is very true actually.

 

[Cheebs]

Everything so far leads me into thinking this is going to be another The Abyss (a movie I quite adore, more so than Terminator 2) in which it will be very high concept but just doesn't connect to the mainstream audience much.

 

[Barrett2]

When will regular Joes like me actually get to see some footage? Is there a teaser out yet?

 

[Veidt]

When will regular Joes like me actually get to see some footage? Is there a teaser out yet?

The 21 of August is Avatar day. You'll get a trailer online and 15 minutes of footage at Imax ( if your local Imax is included).

 

[duckroll]

Everything so far leads me into thinking this is going to be another The Abyss (a movie I quite adore, more so than Terminator 2) in which it will be very high concept but just doesn't connect to the mainstream audience much.

I don't think The Abyss suffered because it didn't connect with the audience, I think it suffered because the theatrical release was a hackjob.

 

[Zeliard]

Have anyone who has seen the footage commented on the difference between Avatar and Pirates in terms of CG?

The argument that 'it doesn't look real because these things don't exist' is not valid, because Davy Jones looks 100% real to me, as far as real can be without having seen the character in real life.

I thought he was done with amazing animatronics when I saw the film.

When I originally made that post about some CGI automatically not looking real because it isn't real, I wasn't talking about the CGI used in the film on the Avatars, who are given the Davey Jones-style CG/mo-cap treatment.

I was talking about the stuff in the film that would be fully CG, such as what the guy I was responding to wrote: "cg looking monster chasing a cg looking alien in a cg looking forest".

The "cg looking forest" is presumably in Pandora, which I believe is fully computer-generated, along with the Na'vi as well. As gorgeous and "realistic" as it may look, if you see a world with bioluminscent flora and fauna and mile-high tall unearthly trees, and ten-foot tall blue aliens roaming about, you consciously know that's all being generated by a computer.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

Alright it looks like the first AVATAR Day locations are up for the frenchies!

Bordeaux : Gaumont Talence
Lieusaint : Gaumont Carré Sénart
Lyon : Pathé Carré de Soie
Marne la vallée : Gaumont Disney Village
Marseille : Pathé Plan de Campagne
Montpellier : Gaumont Multiplexe
Nantes : Pathé Atlantis
Paris : Gaumont Champs-Elysées Marignan
Paris : Gaumont Opéra (côté Capucines)
Rennes : Gaumont
Rouen : Pathé Docks 76
Toulouse : Gaumont Wilson

http://www.dvdrama.com/news-35231-avatar-premieres-images-en-exclusivite-mondiale-.php

I will be very interested at what time exactly they decide to release the trailer online.

 

[CENOBITE]

Have anyone who has seen the footage commented on the difference between Avatar and Pirates in terms of CG?

The argument that 'it doesn't look real because these things don't exist' is not valid, because Davy Jones looks 100% real to me, as far as real can be without having seen the character in real life.

I thought he was done with amazing animatronics when I saw the film.

I would have to say they are on the same level technically, however, the Navi's skin looks to have less sub-surface scattering where Davy Jone's skin was made to behave/look like silicon, rubbery. The Navi have more 'eel' like skin.

 

[CENOBITE]

But you guys KEEP GETTING IT WRONG.

This shouldn't be about who has the biggest dick when it comes to CG. James Cameron said that the major point of this film is to draw you emotionally into the story and CG was the only way this movie could be made. The point isnt the CG itself, but the fact that you will hopefully forget the CG and just enjoy the story.

 

[Busty]

There is a rumour going the rounds that in the UK only 'members' of IMAX cinemas will be allowed to watch the Avatar trailer on 'Avatar Day'.

There are only 8 IMAXs screens in Britain and only one in Scotland (Glasgow) and the screenings of the Avatar trailer will not be open to the 'general public'.

If that isn't the definition of 'niche audience' I don't know what is.

 

[Veidt]

There is a rumour going the rounds that in the UK only 'members' of IMAX cinemas will be allowed to watch the Avatar trailer on 'Avatar Day'.

There are only 8 IMAXs screens in Britain and only one in Glasgow and the screenings of the Avatar trailer will not be open to the 'general public'.

If that isn't the definition of 'niche audience' I don't know what is.

That's exactly what I feared. This IMAX screening thing is way too compressed. I like many others, will just end up watching the 2D trailer online.

 

[Dabookerman]

ILM ftw. WETA cries bitter tears.

This succeeded heavily as I thought that was make up, like.. 90% or something.

 

[harryz]

Hope they announce UK IMAX screens soon. Will they be showing the trailer at IMAX aswell as the 15 minutes footage?

Also a lot of people are mentioning Davy Jones as a CG standpoint (which it is), but I thought Zodiac needs a mention - http://www.digitaldomain.com/play_video.php?id=25&section=bts

I didn't even notice there was that much CG in the movie apart from a few scenes.

 

[Busty]

That's exactly what I feared. This IMAX screening thing is way too compressed. I like many others, will just end up watching the 2D trailer online.

I've all but resigned myself to this to be honest.

I work in media and unless someone hooks me up with a pass for the screening (which might happen) I'll just watch online and then catch it at the cinema in December.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I don't think The Abyss suffered because it didn't connect with the audience, I think it suffered because the theatrical release was a hackjob.

It also had the unfortunate distinction of opening the week before Uncle Buck, which didn't work out so well. And apparently, some network did a survey when the movie came out and most of the respondents had no idea what an abyss was.

 

[DieNgamers]

But you guys KEEP GETTING IT WRONG.

This shouldn't be about who has the biggest dick when it comes to CG. James Cameron said that the major point of this film is to draw you emotionally into the story and CG was the only way this movie could be made. The point isnt the CG itself, but the fact that you will hopefully forget the CG and just enjoy the story.

This. If he's able to get me into the story and show me an awesome believable (created) world I'd say mission accomplished. There's almost no way this movie will disappoint me because of that. A very shitty story and horrendous screenwriting could change that but looking at cameron's legacy and the overall concept what can go wrong?

 

[jett]

There is a rumour going the rounds that in the UK only 'members' of IMAX cinemas will be allowed to watch the Avatar trailer on 'Avatar Day'.

There are only 8 IMAXs screens in Britain and only one in Scotland (Glasgow) and the screenings of the Avatar trailer will not be open to the 'general public'.

If that isn't the definition of 'niche audience' I don't know what is.

bububu avatar day. This movie is an example of a marketing clusterfuck.

 

[shuyin_]

This succeeded heavily as I thought that was make up, like.. 90% or something.

Yeah, me too. I thought it was a real actor behind most of Davy Jones, but it seems there was no real actor (except the guy who motion captured the animations); instead, what you saw was 100% a CG model.
It really is a CG standpoint (the eyes are so real... :|)

But you guys KEEP GETTING IT WRONG.

This shouldn't be about who has the biggest dick when it comes to CG. James Cameron said that the major point of this film is to draw you emotionally into the story and CG was the only way this movie could be made. The point isnt the CG itself, but the fact that you will hopefully forget the CG and just enjoy the story.

I'm pretty sure everyone agrees with this. If the movie will have a good script, good direction and an emotional story, i don't think anyone will complain about CG. Not unless he wants to troll the movie.

 

[LaneDS]

Hope they announce UK IMAX screens soon. Will they be showing the trailer at IMAX aswell as the 15 minutes footage?

Also a lot of people are mentioning Davy Jones as a CG standpoint (which it is), but I thought Zodiac needs a mention - http://www.digitaldomain.com/play_video.php?id=25&section=bts

I didn't even notice there was that much CG in the movie apart from a few scenes.

I never quite understood why Zodiac needed so much CG work for pretty mundane neighborhood settings. Is it just to set the exact type of lighting and tone that Fincher wanted? I mean it was totally believable when watching the film, but it seems semi-wasteful to me.

 

[Zenith]

Yeah, me too. I thought it was a real actor behind most of Davy Jones, but it seems there was no real actor (except the guy who motion captured the animations); instead, what you saw was 100% a CG model.

What about when Legolas is stealing the key and lifting up all the face tentacles? If that's CG they had the weight down perfectly.

 

[Lord Error]

What about when Legolas is stealing the key and lifting up all the face tentacles? If that's CG they had the weight down perfectly.

I've read he's 100% CG in every scene, face and eyes included. Just like Gollum for example, and was just mocapped with an actor doing movements.

Still, even Davy looked sometimes a bit like animated creature - albeit more like an animatronic than CG, when you could see him walking around. They gave him peg leg so that walk would have to look unnatural, but stilll, there was some juddering and a tad lack of motion blur or something when he would walk - kind of thing characteristic for stop motion actually. Face was always perfect though.

The craziest thing is how natural he looks in sunlight on the beach in the 3rd movie. It's easier to make natural looking CG in darker atmosphere.

 

[Veidt]

All mo-cap and 100% CG.

Also, CG- No Make-up

Davy Jones is completely 3-D Computer-generated.[5] His performance was recorded using motion capture during actual filming on the set, with Nighy wearing several markers in both a grey suit and his face, rather than in a studio during post-production.[6][7][8] Nighy also wore make-up around the eyes, since the original plan was to use his real eyes in the digital character.[5] Briefly during the third film, Jones appears as a human for a single scene, played by Nighy in costume. Many reviewers have in fact mistakenly identified Nighy as wearing prosthetic makeup due to the computer-generated character's photorealism[9][10].

Scene found on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8xs3mrF7VI

 

[harryz]

I never quite understood why Zodiac needed so much CG work for pretty mundane neighborhood settings. Is it just to set the exact type of lighting and tone that Fincher wanted? I mean it was totally believable when watching the film, but it seems semi-wasteful to me.

It was mainly because the area where the killings took place had changed quite dramatically and the residents who lived there didn't want the murders recreated in their neighbourhood so he recreated it using CG. Other effects such as CG blood are done because its a more efficient way of filming because Fincher's known to do tedious amount of takes and using CG blood saves time and leaving more time to film more takes. Its all on the director's cut DVD.

 

[JimiNutz]

There is a rumour going the rounds that in the UK only 'members' of IMAX cinemas will be allowed to watch the Avatar trailer on 'Avatar Day'.

There are only 8 IMAXs screens in Britain and only one in Scotland (Glasgow) and the screenings of the Avatar trailer will not be open to the 'general public'.

If that isn't the definition of 'niche audience' I don't know what is.

FUCK!!! if this is true

 

[smarties00]

There is a rumour going the rounds that in the UK only 'members' of IMAX cinemas will be allowed to watch the Avatar trailer on 'Avatar Day'.

There are only 8 IMAXs screens in Britain and only one in Scotland (Glasgow) and the screenings of the Avatar trailer will not be open to the 'general public'.

If that isn't the definition of 'niche audience' I don't know what is.

How do you become a member of Imax Cinemas is it the same as being a BFI member?

 

[LaneDS]

It was mainly because the area where the killings took place had changed quite dramatically and the residents who lived there didn't want the murders recreated in their neighbourhood so he recreated it using CG. Other effects such as CG blood are done because its a more efficient way of filming because Fincher's known to do tedious amount of takes and using CG blood saves time and leaving more time to film more takes. Its all on the director's cut DVD.

Ah neat. I can totally understand the use of the CG being used for things like the killings, it was just the environments that confused me. Seems like just shooting the movie elsewhere would have been a cheaper, easier solution that probably could have yielded similar (or better) results, but I'm not complaining as it obviously looked entirely convincing.

 

[Feep]

I agree that everyone here is doing too much dick-waving over Avatar's CG.

It was amazing stuff, both on par with and better than Davy, but it's simply not possible to do a quantum leap in effects like Star Wars or Jurassic Park were able to do. Adding in 3-D at the same time is pretty much the closest we're gonna get to that kind of jump, possibly until holographic technology and/or computers-taking-over-your-goddamn-biological-senses come around.

But it's not about that. The world awed me, the story awed me. I'm not sure where the "underwhelmed" impressions came in, but I certainly wasn't. My face must have looked like an eight-year-old's would, the entire time.

 

[Dabanton]

By members of IMAX cinemas do they mean BFI members?

 

[Krev]

If you live in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide or Brisbane, you may be interested in the Rotten Tomatoes have a competition to win double passes to Avatar Day screenings here.

It seems that outside of the USA the event will be very limited and tickets will mostly be given away through competitions.

 

[Costanza]

Clusterfuck.

They should have bought out every IMAX theater in the world for the entire day and just replayed the thing over and over and over for whoever shows up.

 

[duckroll]

What a pointless non-event then. Thanks for nothing Fox.

 

[Krev]

I'm hearing that they are in fact buying out a lot of IMAX theaters in America.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

Thanks for the link Krev. Though I think even if I won I would give away my passes to the 15 minute screening (unless I found out Cameron was going or something).

 

[Krev]

Yeah, me too. As cool as it would be to see footage now, I'd rather first see those scenes in their proper context. I'll settle for the trailer, and will try to avoid any footage released after it.
The turn around in the tone of this thread (and discussions about Avatar in general) is going to be pretty massive after August 21.

 

[Jean-Claude Picard]

No, you're totally wrong. Motion capturing does NOT mean they applied effects over the face of the actor. Davy Jones is 100% CG. No part of what you see on screen is the actor's face. The actor basically acted out the scenes with motion capture trackers all over his face in the actual scenes, but the end result of the character on screen is 100% CG. Avatar is being created using the exact same technique. If you think that the characters in Avatar don't have REAL actors and actresses doing the parts, I don't know what to say except that you have no idea how the movie is being produced. This isn't a Pixar cartoon, the only thing being hand animated are probably the creatures, not the characters.

There's a weird misconception about the Davy Jones character and its quality. He looks so real because he is real. All they did is apply some CGI mask over the actor. All the really relevant data is directly taken from the actor, the lighting and the movement. Except some tentacles. It's basically just adding some layers to the actors body while extracting all the information that is ultimately making it looking so convincing from the real human object underneath.

There's a huge difference between this and creatures that have a different (non-human) physiognomy, that isn't just Star Trek-like additive stuff. Since the movement, weight and lighting data has to be artificially created they look nowhere near as convincing if there's no real object underneath for reference. All these other, more grotesque Pirate character's already look way worse because of that.

Now I don't know how Cameron's aliens will look like but there's basically the choice between looking convincing like Davy Jones, but then they can't be that different from humans or they look alien and these aspects that make them look different won't feel as real.

 

[critch]

Iron Man footage leaked. Does this make this the last movie from Comic-Con to have footage released? Iron Man comes out in May! Tron in december 2010!

Movie is going to be amazing and awesome, but Fox's or Cameron's continued ineptitude at marketing this is going to kill it I don't have a lot of faith that the America 'Avatar day' is going to be anything special to anyone but us. We're, what, two weeks out and we have heard nothing at all other than it's happening? Meanwhile, all the toys have been leaked, the poster released..

*sigh*

 

[Wollan]

The trailer will release online on Avatar day.
And I wouldn't worry about people not knowing there's a big sci-fi film called Avatar releasing when December 18th comes around.

 

[critch]

There's a weird misconception about the Davy Jones character and its quality. He looks so real because he is real. All they did is apply some CGI mask over the actor. All the really relevant data is directly taken from the actor, the lighting and the movement. Except some tentacles. It's basically just adding some layers to the actors body while extracting all the information that is ultimately making it looking so convincing from the real human object underneath.

There's a huge difference between this and creatures that have a different (non-human) physiognomy, that isn't just Star Trek-like additive stuff. Since the movement, weight and lighting data has to be artificially created they look nowhere near as convincing if there's no real object underneath for reference. All these other, more grotesque Pirate character's already look way worse because of that.

Now I don't know how Cameron's aliens will look like but there's basically the choice between looking convincing like Davy Jones, but then they can't be that different from humans or they look alien and these aspects that make them look different won't feel as real.

That's pretty much how they did Gollum too, just on a larger scale. All the movements and mannerisms are Andy Serkis, just with his body cgi'd into Gollum. Same thing with the Polar Express/Beowulf/Christmas Carol, albeit with a more stylized and soulless look to it.

Avatar is supposed to take that and just build on that, while making a completely believable CGI world around it. It's pretty much the next stage of what Zemeckis is doing, trying to make the world realistic instead of whatever the fuck Christmas Carol is supposed to be. Mo-Cap + Cgi world = Wheeee.

 

[critch]

The trailer will release online on Avatar day.
And I wouldn't worry about people not knowing there's a big sci-fi film called Avatar releasing when December 18th comes around.

Movies anymore live or die based on their opening weekend. Marketing budgets are built around beating the movie into your head for sometimes years before. I've drank the kool aid and am ready for this but I'm not convinced that the public, unless Fox suddenly becomes a completely different studio, is going to care. I wouldn't put it past them to have a few quick shots cut as a teaser and then just the title, director of titanic, and that's it.

I still think there's going to be a lot of confused people thinking this is Shymalanan's film.

 

[duckroll]

There's a weird misconception about the Davy Jones character and its quality. He looks so real because he is real. All they did is apply some CGI mask over the actor. All the really relevant data is directly taken from the actor, the lighting and the movement. Except some tentacles. It's basically just adding some layers to the actors body while extracting all the information that is ultimately making it looking so convincing from the real human object underneath.

There's a huge difference between this and creatures that have a different (non-human) physiognomy, that isn't just Star Trek-like additive stuff. Since the movement, weight and lighting data has to be artificially created they look nowhere near as convincing if there's no real object underneath for reference. All these other, more grotesque Pirate character's already look way worse because of that.

Now I don't know how Cameron's aliens will look like but there's basically the choice between looking convincing like Davy Jones, but then they can't be that different from humans or they look alien and these aspects that make them look different won't feel as real.

Do you even know what motion capturing means?

 

[Jean-Claude Picard]

That's pretty much how they did Gollum too, just on a larger scale. All the movements and mannerisms are Andy Serkis, just with his body cgi'd into Gollum. Same thing with the Polar Express/Beowulf/Christmas Carol, albeit with a more stylized and soulless look to it.

Avatar is supposed to take that and just build on that, while making a completely believable CGI world around it. It's pretty much the next stage of what Zemeckis is doing, trying to make the world realistic instead of whatever the fuck Christmas Carol is supposed to be. Mo-Cap + Cgi world = Wheeee.

And Gollum looks a lot less impressive because of the many details that differ from the actor to the CGI creature. Many times his movement has the characteristics of a heavier, different built person and therefore looks wrong. King Kong and Hulk have the opposite problem where they look way too agile for their size. All this motion capturing fails at this point as you can't create convincing non-human creatures with it.

 

[XMonkey]

IIt was amazing stuff, both on par with and better than Davy, but it's simply not possible to do a quantum leap in effects like Star Wars or Jurassic Park were able to do.

To me, Benjamin Button is one of those leaps. It's one thing to make believable fantasy characters that are all CG, but fooling people with a CG human actor (well, face) like they did in BB is incredible.